Cera, thank you for finding, but that wasn't really helpful.  How the sun looks with math gives the same result.  A 3000 mile away sun that has a diameter of 32 miles across will look the same as a 93000000 miles away sun with a diameter of 864000 miles.  the perspective is the same on earth which is why they made guesses to how far and what size.  It doesn't mean the data was arbitary just that perspective is limited from our spot on the earth.

The rest of the video added the moon and the spin and other things, that I am not researching right now.

Are you able to find a video that shows the experiments that were done in regards to seeing things that we shouldn't have seen because they dropped below the curvature of the earth, but we can see them.

Also, please take note of what was said in the video.

Quote:  "It is obvious to any child and sovereign-minded adult that the Sun, Moon, stars and planets, every light in the sky above, revolves around the motionless Earth beneath our feet. It is also plain to see that the Sun and Moon are both approximately the same size and situated relatively close to Earth, not 400 times divergent and millions upon millions of miles away. To abandon your senses and every day experience in favor of such unfounded science-fiction fantasies is a fallacy of appeal to authority so extreme that it leaves the brain-washed believer impotent to trust his own natural instincts and forever thereafter chained to the fantastical explanations of astronomical charlatans."

I don't need someone belittling me that is trying to teach me.  If I spoke that way to you, would you listen?
This wasn't the only time the person talked this way.

I am trying to understand how the words from the video which you put in red were belittling. My take on it is that he is asking us to have an open mind and as he says "trust our own instincts."

You asked for infomation related to math or geometry, which I took time away from my family in order to post for you. Now you have changed your mind and are saying
Are you able to find a video that shows the experiments that were done in regards to seeing things that we shouldn't have seen because they dropped below the curvature of the earth, but we can see them.

Many many such experiments have been previously posted on CI.

You asked for infomation related to math or geometry, which I took time away from my family in order to post for you. Now you have changed your mind and are saying
Are you able to find a video that shows the experiments that were done in regards to seeing things that we shouldn't have seen because they dropped below the curvature of the earth, but we can see them.

Many many such experiments have been previously posted on CI.

Indeed, "see too far" is at the core of the FE problem and why many have been ultimately convinced of FE.  It's really basic math.  Now, the response is typically just to claim (or rather just throw out the word) "refraction", as some kind of deus ex machina that actually addresses anything.  It's only effective if you've already begged the question that the earth is a globe and are grasping for any straw that might salvage the globe in light of these findings.  But refraction does not suffice and has been debunked by two-way laser experiments performed by Dr. John D.  In addition, for refraction to operate over hundreds of miles without any significant distortion, you'd have to have a constant rate of refraction not only for the entire 200+ miles between the object and the observer, but also for anything behind the object; otherwise even slightly different refraction rates would cause objects to blur over one another and would cause massive distoration, and the odds of a consistent rate of refraction over 200+ miles is next to 0.  There's no refutation for this given current science.  Now, if someone wanted to claim that the earth's magnetic field or the flow of the ether cause light to bend at a consistent rate around the globe, that might be more plausible, but I know of no such theory.  As far as anyone knows, light bends only very slightly due to such forces, we're talking millimeters over the scale of millions of miles.  But any such theory would be more plausible than "refraction".

God helps those who help themselves.

That is a priceless response. 

 I am the ignorant on  this topic, so actually I am giving you a chance to do a spiritual act of mercy.

Instruct the ignorant.

I am the ignorant on  this topic, so actually I am giving you a chance to do a spiritual act of mercy.

Instruct the ignorant.

I'm just jumping around here but it sounds like you're not sure where to look?  For me, I've found Taboo Conspiracy on youtube posts numerous vids showing repeatable experiments.  P-brane also does some interesting vids on perspective.

Here's a vid I like, partly because I lived in Santa Barbara for ten years and know this location.  What's great is that the horizon is way behind the oil rigs.  Very interesting stuff.

I'm just jumping around here but it sounds like you're not sure where to look?  For me, I've found Taboo Conspiracy on youtube posts numerous vids showing repeatable experiments.  P-brane also does some interesting vids on perspective.

Here's a vid I like, partly because I lived in Santa Barbara for ten years and know this location.  What's great is that the horizon is way behind the oil rigs.  Very interesting stuff.

I can't edit my post, but forgot to add, the answer to his question is that he has got his calculations wrong somewhere, pretty cool that with the camera technology today we can see such things personally, because it's irrefutable proof given that the water at the horizon is raised from that at the oil rigs... an incline, which is impossible for a flat Earth but makes total sense for a globe Earth given that there is an incline before disappearing over the horizon.

This really is a great video to prove the Globe Earth IMO... Thank you!

Note: He is also on a raised platform taking the shot, so that would also mess with his calculations as he isn't looking down at the sea level.

God Bless

The water behind the rigs is the horizon.  You should check his calculations actually because, according to any Curvature Calculator you'll find online (that I'm sure you'd trust), the oil rigs would be obstructed by the earth curvature.  There is no obstruction.  This is easily reproduced in numerous experiments.  Feel free to pass around the video though, by all means.

Yes, the water behind the rigs is leading up to the horizon, why is it higher than Platform C? Then Habitat is higher again with the water at the Horizon higher again (much higher than the base of Platform C or Habitat and at such a distance).

Now I don't know where he got it wrong in his calculations, it's not my area of expertise so I can't really check his work... but I don't need to because this proves the Earth's curvature as it's nonsensical to see that if the Earth were flat, it's the curvature that makes it incline until the horizon.

Yea, I will use that video and thank you for sharing it, as I needed something using modern technology that's reproducible and observable for most people so we aren't stuck arguing like we are in the 1500's and given the sources bias is hostile to a globe Earth it's the best source for it IMO. I'd also add that if you get a telescope you can see the Moon and a couple Planets and see that everything around us is also a globe.

God Bless

The water is 'higher' because that the same vanishing point you were taught in art class when you were a lot younger.

Vanishing point absolutely cannot explain that away. I can clearly see the incline until the Horizon and beyond the Horizon he would observe what he claims is missing with those rigs, like I said, I don't know where his calculations or the 'calculator' is wrong, but it doesn't matter because this incline is clearly visible IMO and remember, it's sea level... a body of water, it doesn't incline like a hill. 

God Bless